LeonV

Conjecture? Subtle results? Temp readings at different points of the head, while at steady state on an engine dyno issounds like a good procedure to me, with very conclusive results to boot! Heat Transfer is not voodoo. The back of the head is hotter because it receives the hottest coolant and the least amount of flow. You improve cooling by either increasing flow, delivering cooler coolant, or both. Exactly how much more evidence do you need? I've been saying all along that running it to the radiator would be a better solution to plugging (with a properly restricted line) and much better than looping. The evidence very strongly points to it. What got me thinking originally was John Coffey's post about how he's routed the heater supply to the thermostat housing. While that may be effective (I don't know), I concluded that routing it past the thermostat was a better idea, since you'd be in more control over where this coolant is flowing. If instrumented testing proves me wrong, I'll happily eat my words.

I'll quote a few statements I made earlier... You need to see the big picture here. Temps at the back of the head have been measured to be hotter than the front. The "bad" thing to do is to short the back of the head to the water pump inlet. This raises coolant temperatures (because of bypassing the radiator) and further increases chances of overheating at the back of the head. Plugging the back of the head puts you at square one. Routing the back of the head to the radiator only helps to improve things. This would help promote flow at the back of the head. More coolant flow = more cooling. Less flow = less cooling and increased chances of nucleate boiling. It should be clear that there should be some restriction in the line. Look at the (somewhat undetailed) drawing in the Cooling section of the FSM, page CO-1, if this is unclear.

Sure thing.

That's a good idea. Check all sockets, starting with the parking lights. Those are a very likely culprit.

Save yourself the trouble and get a STE-SK syncrometer instead of a Unisyn. Same price and magnitudes better. I gave my last Unisyn away for free...

I thought it was well-known that Nissan improved the spray bar design over the years...

Yes, that's exactly it. The whole reason for the head being hot in the back is that the thermostat is in the front, as is the water pump. The path of least resistance is to the front of the head, thus the back gets less cooling. By creating a path from the back of the head to the radiator, you are working to equalize temps, not the other way around as you infer. What Tim and other guys are doing is a better solution as they tap into multiple (or "better") spots in the head, but that doesn't make routing a small line from the back of the head to the radiator inherently "bad". With that said, it will definitely not "increase the chance of overheating"...

Deviation from stock means .1914/.25 = .7656 (for the 1"), or 23% larger than the 7/8 MC. Deviation from stock reflects how much LESS pedal travel there is and how much MORE pedal force is required. Using the 1" to 7/8" comparison (with stock calipers), there is 23% more force required but 23% less pedal travel.

Wha??? I have NEVER heard this. Shorting the back of the head to the pump inlet creates issues. Creating a path from the back of the head to the radiator only helps to improve things. There's a huge thread on HybridZ detailing this.

Wow, that is going to sell "qwik"-ly!

I'm going off of the FSM:

The carbs are worth some by themselves, I was only considering the long-block/trans. The carbs would bring in an extra $150 or so, if they need a rebuild.

Anywhere from free to a couple hundred bucks if you're lucky.

FWIW, the factory steering column IS collapsable.

Almost bought it until I was told that it'll only fit early cars with the further-back shifter hole. That, and finding a drive-shaft might prove difficult. Good luck!

Was this the 5-speed in Union City?

Looking good! That brace should tighten up the front.

FWIW, I took some measuring tape to my choke cables this morning. I forgot to bring my notes to work so I'll have to go off of memory. My early 260Z choke cables were shorter than my 3/71 240Z cables. Measurements were taken from the flange that the rubber sheath butts up against, not the lever. Early 260Z: ~60"/54" (longer cable/shorter cable) 3/71 240Z: ~65"/59" So about a 5" difference between the two. Note: measurements are approximations. I used measuring tape and the cables were not perfectly straight.

I blew it, had a busy day yesterday and forgot to check. I already put a note in my phone to do so tonight. Wade makes a good point, and I was going to say the same. Trial fit, then cut. I'll measure the lengths and report them here, regardless.

Get over itself? The thing is, Nissan doesn't need to do anything. Are you suggesting Nissan tools up for tiny production runs of parts for cars they made 40 years ago? That's never going to happen. It's all about the market. Compare the production numbers of Mustangs to the S30 and you'll have the answer of why they're better supported. With that said, there are reproductions being made for plenty of Z parts, just look at MSA's site. I don't think Nissan is stopping anyone. I also don't think a $200 shift knob on ebay keeps people away from these cars. Frankly, the cheap price of entry into the Z-world reflects the opposite and thus the Z populace generally seems notoriously cheap (compared to other vintage car owners). I wouldn't mind prices of Z parts going up at all, it'll make my hoard more valuable.

I will do my best to remember to check it out tonight!

Did you mean mid-80s? Cool stuff!

Great info Arne! We seem to be getting a ton of "ID this wheel please" posts, maybe we should consolidate it into one thread?

Ha, that's right! They do look similar to early C4 Vette wheels:

The VIA and JWL markings have nothing to do with the manufacturer, they're basically certification labels. JWL standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My bet is these are some type of OEM Nissan wheel, probably from the '80s.